Talk:Lord Mountbatten

Allegations section

This currently contains the following sentences:

These claims were dismissed by the Northern Ireland Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry (HIA). The HIA stated that the article making the original allegations "did not give any basis for the assertions that any of these people [Mountbatten and others] were connected with Kincora".

References

However, this is very problematic. The only relevant part of the HIA report is on pages 58 through to 60. The use of "These claims" would suggest to the reader that this applies to all the claims prior to the problematic text, when in fact the HIA are only referring to the claims made by Richard Kerr in 2015, which it says are of limited use due to lack of supporting evidence. However that's only "dismissed" (more on that in a minute) that one article from 2015, not everything else. The use of the word "dismissed" is also somewhat problematic anyway, since the allegations are not being "dismissed" as false (one plausible interpretation of the current text) but simply "dismissed" Kerr's allegations since he didn't provide evidence and did not engage with the HIA's inquiry (page 60). Also they weren't the "original allegations" either, since Bryans's article was published in 1990.

So, this needs fixing. Either the specific Kerr allegations need to be added and the HIA text made clear that it applies solely to Kerr's allegations, or the HIA claims need to be removed completely. Either way, a small change to the lead will also be needed. Anyone have a preference? FDW777 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

My inclination would be to make it clear that the HIA text applies solely to Kerr's allegations. Dormskirk (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The discussion revolved around WP:COMMONNAME as opposed to WP:NCPEER and, separately, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE, which most support !voters used as a rationale. There is no question that the current title is more concise.

Oppose !voters brought receipts to show that the present common name is indeed Lord Mountbatten. Moreover, editors were split on their interpretations of NCPEER, some readings being more lenient than others.

Being that most editors opposed a move, the fact that the present title is seen to be more concise and as the common name, and that the only prominent argument for is consistency, I read consensus against a move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Lord Mountbatten → Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of BurmaLouis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma – The result of the last RM on this page was definitely mixed even though we settled on "Lord Mountbatten". However, when a similar RM was lodged here to move Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma to "Lady Mountbatten" based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT, many people opposed on the grounds that the move on her husband's page should not have been carried out and needed to be reverted, arguing that the move was not "encyclopaedic". Hence I am trying to create the opportunity for people to argue why this page could potentially be reverted back to its original title given that this was the main reason the RM at his wife's page failed. I hope this settles the debate on whether we should go with the common name alone, or the name that is common and 'encyclopedic'. Keivan.f^Talk 18:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I read through the Lady Mountbatten RM and the only valid oppose rationale is "This isn't actually her common name". That is, in my view, probably wrong, but at least it's intelligible, unlike all the others which didn't even bother to look at NCPEER. Here's what it says: There is an exception to the standard naming scheme "when one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known". This man is overwhelmingly the best known Earl Mountbatten of Burma, undoubtedly so. The guideline explicitly allows this title. That doesn't mean it requires it, which is why I'm not opposing (yet), but it is explicitly permitted. Previous consensus, gained fairly recently, placed this article at its current title. Changing it back is allowed, of course, but it shouldn't be done without strong rationale as to why that consensus was wrong and this article would be better off at the title Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbattan of Burma than the equally valid title Lord Mountbatten. If RM participants disagree with allowing names of this sort, they should get the guideline changed. As an aside, in my view, Lord Mountbatten is the WP:COMMONNAME, per Ngrams. Ladtrack (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this either way, but what basically prompted me to open this RM after a while was the arguments presented at Edwina Mountbatten's page, basically saying that the move carried out on this page was not reasonable. Well, here's the opportunity for those same people to convince everyone why we should use the previous article title. And if they fail in doing so, then this cannot be brought up as a grievance or taken into consideration by the closing party at any future RMs at Edwina Mountbatten's page. Keivan.f^Talk 22:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason for a long disambiguator when one is not required. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This is only really a matter of whether or not Lord Mountbatten qualifies as a WP:COMMONNAME or not right? Because that overrides arguments for consistency with other articles about people with British honorary titles (that being the long way with their name and then title). While I agree it's somewhat annoying that this article is named Lord Mountbatten while his wife's article isn't named Lady Mountbatten, the inconsistency doesn't necessarily mean that one of them have to change. Their article names have to be evaluated separately. It could just be a case of one qualifying for WP:COMMONNAME treatment while the other does not, and therefore defaulting to the longer naming format for consistency with every other Brit who has a title but no special WP:COMMONNAME. ―Maltazarian ^{(talkinvestigate)} 16:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Obviously I don't want to turn this into a discussion on Edwina's article, but as the Ngrams show, the common name for Edwina Mountbatten is Lady Mountbatten and she is the primary target for that name (most works referring to a Lady Mountbatten were published during her lifetime). So this is more about the style preference at this point because some users were arguing that WP:COMMONNAME should be tossed away in favor of a more encyclopedic style. Well, I am still waiting for the opposing side to put their arguments forward. Keivan.f^Talk 20:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Should never have been moved in the first place away from the title that's consistent with pretty much all other peers. Very poor and nonsensical decision (based on absolutely no consensus) that does nothing to help anyone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lord Mountbatten is by far the most common name for Louis Mountbatten, per Ngrams. Nobody types 'Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Tautology of Burma' into a search engine, on or off Wikipedia. No dismbiguator is necessary, and no disambiguator will be necessary unless one of his successors becomes really, really famous. (Most of his successors don't appear notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, and only one of the ones that do seem to actually satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. For some reason, the advice that notability is not inherited doesn't seem to apply to members of the British artiscracy? But that's an aside.) If Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma isn't at the same style of COMMONNAME article title, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that should be considered by the closer on that page's RM, or this one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Would match better with his (successors) daughter & grandson bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I also feel that it should never have been moved. I don't agree with the moves that have given us the anomalous Lord Byron and Lord Kelvin, but at least they are universally known by those names, so I do understand (even if I don't agree with) the rationale for completely disregarding our usual naming conventions in their cases. But this is nowhere near such a case: apart from anything else, he was actually "Lord Louis Mountbatten" for most of his career, and the title isn't even accurate because it omits part of his peerage (if we were going to follow the Byron/Kelvin examples the article should actually be Lord Mountbatten of Burma). Proteus (Talk) 18:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Our usual naming convention actually explicitly allows for the use of these names (outright giving Byron as an example of when this format is acceptable), so I don't think it'd be accurate to say we're disregarding them. Ladtrack (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Our usual naming conventions" are as set out in paragraph 1 of the part of the guidelines you linked to. The rule that allows Lord Byron etc is explicitly described as an "exception" in the second main bullet point - i.e. it is a departure from the usual practice. I said it was an anomaly (which it is), not that it was contrary to the guidelines. Proteus (Talk) 14:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. He is more often than not simply known as Lord Mountbatten, therefore the title of his article should remain as such. Velociraptor888 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  You could say that about most peers who are not well-known by their actual names. Why should he be an exception to our long-standing naming conventions? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  A more pertinent question would be why should British peers be an exception to WP:COMMONNAME, an actual policy on the English Wikipedia, whereas the naming convention for royalty and nobility is just a guideline that allows exceptions. Again, nobody is coming to Wikipedia and entering "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma" into the seach box. Common sense and editing for the reader should be the order of the day. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Our long-standing naming convention has an explicit exception for when one holder of a title is "overwhelmingly the best known", as is the case for this particular Earl Mountbatten of Burma. That exception has been in the guideline since 2010. Why wouldn't it apply here? Ladtrack (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title does not comply with WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Google Trends show that people search for "Lord Mountbatten" more than any other search title . Several Google Scholar results picked from the top of the page also contain the use of simply "Lord Mountbatten" . Making the titles consistent for the sake of consistency is contrary to the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Also seconding Bastun's comments above. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 09:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistancy. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to add a further comment to my support. It is worth noting that, when it comes to titles, the WP:COMMONNAME will almost always be "Lady Something" or "Lord Something" because that is how they are address when referred to. So while, yes, "Lord Mountbatten" is seemingly the overwhelming common name here, it's in part because of title etiquette (if that is the right word for it). Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is overwhelmingly his common name as demonstrated above. If it is inconsistent with other article titles (which I doubt) then we need to either change these other titles or (more likely) clarify the policy on consistency so that it is (dare I say) consistent with the rest of the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Task forces/Person, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Singapore, WikiProject Pakistan, WikiProject Myanmar, WikiProject Indian history, WikiProject Indian politics, WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Berkshire, and WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies have been notified of this discussion. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I fully agree with everybody else's arguments about WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME above; Bastun puts my position particularly well. Maybe there's a COMMONNAME argument for Lord Mountbatten of Burma (as advanced by Proteus above) but that isn't what's being proposed here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:CONCISE, Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision. If we applied COMMONNAME consistently the way some people are in this case we would have to shorten a lot of article titles. The guidelines in no way demand this. I think that using his actual name, Louis, and his actual title, earl, in the article title are more useful than using a term of address. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. He was best known by the public as Lord Mountbatten (WP:COMMONNAME), and there is no other Lord Mountbatten nearly as well known (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). pburka (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per policy, article titles should be recognizable, precise, natural, concise and consistent. Louis Mountbatten and Edwina Mountbatten are the most consistent of the recognizable, precise, natural, concise alternatives, because those article titles are consistent with the project-wide guidelines for biographies. The form Firstname Lastname is the most consistent option because the vast majority of biography titles are of this form. WP:NCPEER should be brought in line with policy and the other guidelines. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you want to change WP:NCPEER it would be wise to start a discussion on the talk page over there. You would not be the first to do so; that guideline is considered by many to have some issues.
  ―Maltazarian ^{(talkinvestigate)} 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  It can happen either way. If we have a rough consensus here that goes against the current naming convention, then that makes a case for changing the convention. This is a valid and quite common way in which changes to conventions, guidelines and policies are initiated, in response to the policy that consensus can change. Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm aware that is a common way to change convention, I suspect my comment may have come off as a rebuttal; I did not mean it that way. I wasn't trying to say "this is how it is if you want it another way go change the rules", I meant it as in I would genuinely appreciate if a discussion was started over there about this. I would be for changing that guideline, but I'm not sure how much support there is for it, so if the attention this RfC has gotten could be used to whip up some debate about it over there I'd find that fantastic. ―Maltazarian ^{(talkinvestigate)} 09:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  AFAIK we don't normally refer to RM discussions as RfC discussions although they have obvious similarities, am I missing something? (That comment just for the benefit of relative newbies who might be misled.)

  If you're for changing that guideline why not propose the change yourself? Or DrKay says WP:NCPEER should be brought in line with policy and the other guidelines. So that's two in favour of some change already. (But not necessarily the same change.)

  First stop should IMO be to discuss possible changes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). It might also be worth scanning the 25 archive pages of that very popular talk page, which I have not done, but again consensus can change so that's not essential, just perhaps helpful. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah this is an RM discussion, not an RfC discussion, that's just a mistake by me. I may very well propose it after this RM closes, I was just trying to sound the waters a bit. I've already checked the archives for the most recent discussions that were held on the matter actually, but yes, it will be helpful to take a deeper look before opening any discussion there, and I will certainly do so. ―Maltazarian ^{(talkinvestigate)} 09:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  As this discussion is already 14 days old, I thought it timely to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Andrewa (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support per consistency and per Necrothesp and Proteus (in both discussions). "Lord Mountbatten" is like titling the article on the former Prime Minister as "Boris" or the current US President as "Trump" - an excessively shortened form as the title is "Mountbatten of Burma". WP:NCPEER was written to bring consistency in one of many fields where listing and spoken forms do not always align and it is always foolish to deviate from that, especially for the sake of Google hits. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  We would in fact title the article on Boris Johnson as "Boris" if that was determined to be the WP:COMMONNAME. For your information: we are currently discussing changing WP:NCPEER to be more aligned with the entirety of the policy on article titles. If you have opinions on this subject I invite you to participate in that discussion. ―Maltazarian ^{(talkinvestigate)} 12:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per the exception in WP:NCPEER for cases where one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known, which boils down to applying WP:COMMONNAME. In any case I'd also support eliminating most of NCPEER and falling back to COMMONNAME in the vast majority of cases, but that's the subject of a separate discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Per our article titles policy which overrides the nonsense NCPEER argument. By the way, NCPEER itself makes clear that "When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known" these unnecessarily long titles aren't needed. NCPEER should be made to conform much more closely with our article titles policy. AusLondonder (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  We have actually started a pre-RfC discussion on doing just that with WP:NCPEER. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 17:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The exception at WP:NCPEER for when one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known breaks WP:NCPEER (specifically point 1), and I think misunderstands why Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron (the only examples illustrating that point) should be treated as exceptions. It's not because they're the best-known holders of their titles, but because they'd be less recognisable from names that follow the standard format for peers. The same goes for other literary figures such as Lord Dunsany, Baroness Orczy and the Marquis de Sade; they're all writers whose works are usually published under those forms of their names. The example at WP:NCPEER of how Lord Palmerston redirects to the prime minister, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, is a better way of dealing with most famous holders of a title in general. Otherwise we'd have the article titles Henry Temple, 1st Viscount Palmerston, followed by Henry Temple, 2nd Viscount Palmerston, followed by Lord Palmerston. And, of course, endless RMs for every most famous holder of a title. Ham II (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  So what you're suggesting is that NCPEER exceptions take place when COMMONNAME would win. So... why not just follow COMMONNAME? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  The article titles policy is clear: Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision. It isn't Ham II suggesting it, it's the policy page expressly allowing it. Srnec (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's just an argument for using Louis Mountbatten instead of Mountbatten not an argument for adding five extra words that aren't necessary. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - He is known for a number of things. The proposed title limits the major aspects of his biography. Zalaraz (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support as this is the normal way to title articles about British peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin S. Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose In my reading of WP:NCPEER, this seems clearly to fall into the extensive category of exceptions to any styling rule. There is no need for "natural disambiguation", and this current title is overwhelmingly his common name, such that the proposed title would be unnecessary friction for the reader trying to check if it's the "Lord Mountbatten" they thought they were looking for. As for the comparison with Lady Mountbatten, not only WP:Otherstuffexists but there are issues of disambiguation: she is not famous in her own right in the way that Lord Mountbatten is; other Lady Mountbattens exist who could just as easily lay claim to the common name. (Whereas the current Earl Mountbatten of Burma doesn't even have "Lord Mountbatten" as a used name as far as I can see). So while I understand the desire from some for consistency, this is really not a great case for that argument. OsFish (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support. This makes sense to me, especially if Lady Mountbatten has the same username page, why not have consistency between them? Furthermore I think he's still very associated with this title. Jasp7676 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the reasons given by User:OsFish. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - can an uninvolved admin or editor close this? WP:RM says Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours)..., but this one has been open for over a month, with two separate re-listings (contrary to WP:RMRELIST), with only two additional comments being added after each re-listing. It's clear at this stage that the result will be 'No consensus'. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Numerically we have 9 supports and 13 opposes, sure, but let's not preempt how the closer weighs the arguments and determines whether or not we have a consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I do agree that all discussion is exhausted, but it's a big RM to read through and weigh the arguments so it does make sense it takes a bit longer for someone willing to do so shows up. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 14:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've taken the liberty to list this up at WP:CR. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 07:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Royal Cypher

The Earl had a cypher consisting of the letters M and B encircled by the Garter and topped by a coronet. It appears on his tombstone, and also on some of his letterheads. Do we have an illustration of this to add to his page? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure, but you can always put up a request at WP:GL. Keivan.f^Talk 23:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a copy of a 1973 letter from Mountbatten to Arthur Marder to work from. God knows what the licensing restrictions are on such a thing. —Simon Harley (Talk). 04:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• 
• 

Lord of the Fleet

Where is the evidence this rank qualifies as an honorific prefix? Obviously the content of other articles is of no relevance whatsoever. FDW777 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

It's a repetition anyway. It shouldn't be in the infobox twice. DrKay (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2026 (UTC)